Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
Posted by Granite State



GS, I have seen mixed reviews on Cohen's book. Most agree his points are well argued, but some critics believe he has shifted the argument too far to the political end and attempts to silence the voice of the military. Interested in your thoughts on that view?

Haven't read it yet, but would be interested in his views if expressed on LBJ's inept control of the war (not an apology for Westmoreland), or JFK's handling of the Bay of Pigs (paramilitary operation). I would add our recent adventure in OIF where military advice was ignored on troop levels required to stabilize Iraq. I'm a believer of the military instrument being subordinate to policy and civilian leadership, but there is a balance that must achieved. I can't imagine a policy maker telling a brain surgeon how he will remove a tumor. I can imagine him telling him what the objective is, what risk he is willing to incur, what the left and right limits are, and basically have a discussion between policy makers and military professionals. The discussion can't end, because we'll be fighting a thinking and adaptive adversary, so the relationship must be persistent and both must remain flexible in policy ends and the military approach.
It definitely changed my perspective. He argues that Huntington's "normal" theory of civil-military relations (basically what you're describing) is not the best way to do business. LBJ gets mentioned, but the case studies are Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill, and Ben-Gurion. Cohen's issue with LBJ is not really that he meddled, but that he meddled badly. And the old line about military professionals being like surgeons who rarely if ever perform surgery has some truth to it.

Cohen's brief Rumsfeld chapter does not hold up well. But I think some of our recent problems stem from excessive deference to the military, not the other way around. Will get to my copy of "British Generals in Blair's Wars" one of these days to get another angle. All in all, "Supreme Command" is worth your time, even if only to provide a contrary perspective and an introduction to some of the national leaders mentioned above. Made me want to dig into some of the Churchill revisionism (Corrigan) and learn a lot more about US Civil War generalship.